Can you prove the Resurrection of Jesus Christ actually occurred? It seems to me that if a man came back from the dead that there would be more than one book about it. I mean, seriously, he came back from the dead and the only book about it is the Bible?

I think it can be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the Resurrection of Christ actually occured in history. And I think William Lane Craig shows this to be true in his numerous debates with highly intelligent atheists and non-believers.

I think it can be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the Resurrection of Christ actually occurred in history.

Hello Fran,

I would say that the beyond reasonable doubt criteria is only applicable to reasonable claims. It is not unreasonable for a reasonable person to highly doubt unreasonable claims, therefore they require much more evidence to convince than the normal quality or quantity required for a beyond reasonable doubt level, such as a court of law.

Indeed, the Bible TEACHES AND DEMANDS that we all TEST EVERYTHING!!!!!

God abhores Blind faith and teaches against it. So when Christians and the Bible are talking about "faith", they are talking about trust. But that trust is not blind. It is based on evidence. And that is the point.

I think you do not know god very well.

Quote

John 20:29 (New International Version)

29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

It'd be nice if you'd follow that kind of statement up with, you know, evidence?

Why don't we start a new thread on this subject and ask Fran to participate? There we can all hash out what the evidence is, and whether the claim of a dead person returning to life 2000 years ago is a reasonable claim, requiring normal historical standards of evidence, or whether it is an unreasonable claim, requiring evidence above and beyond that required for normal human historical events.

How about it Fran? You game? I don't have to ask the other members if they are, because I already know the answer.

I think that would be best, after all that is not the reason that this post was started. We should leave this thread to discuss what it was intended and start a new one to discuss the subject that Fran has some how managed to bring up.

Logged

I can see where your coming from but on the other hand i dont want my kid to learn about evolution or see homosexualisom talked about in a scince classs ethier. <-- From Youguysarepathetic

At least I have a mother. Have you? (serious question) <---From Skylark889

This is now split off as a new topic. We will discuss this per my post above. I'll invite Fran via PM.

While we wait for Fran, we need to decide what a reasonable person today would require to be convinced that a dead man returned to life 2000 years ago. What evidence would you require? Can any amount of historical textual documentation do the job, assuming there is no physical evidence left?

Even if it happened, is there any other way to explain it medically? Perhaps a deity wasn't involved, per some unique set of medical circumstances.

Even if it happened, is there any other way to explain it medically? Perhaps a deity wasn't involved, per some unique set of medical circumstances.

I don't think there's any reason to try to explain it medically since it logically follows that it didn't happen. If everyone thought Jesus was really dead, and then all of a sudden he's back up walking and talking, I'm sure there would have been plenty of other places besides the bible we would have heard about it.

I believe the resurrection of Jesus is pure invention without any basis in a man surviving crucifixion.

Logged

"As a God fearing Christian, you should never ever date an Atheist. One night alone with an atheist is enough for you to lose your faith and to be converted into one of the spiritually dead."

Indeed, the Bible TEACHES AND DEMANDS that we all TEST EVERYTHING!!!!!

God abhores Blind faith and teaches against it. So when Christians and the Bible are talking about "faith", they are talking about trust. But that trust is not blind. It is based on evidence. And that is the point.

I think you do not know god very well.

Quote

John 20:29 (New International Version)

29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

I don't need to see something to have good evidence for something and thus have good reason to believe it (or Him) exists.

It'd be nice if you'd follow that kind of statement up with, you know, evidence?

Why don't we start a new thread on this subject and ask Fran to participate? There we can all hash out what the evidence is, and whether the claim of a dead person returning to life 2000 years ago is a reasonable claim, requiring normal historical standards of evidence, or whether it is an unreasonable claim, requiring evidence above and beyond that required for normal human historical events.

How about it Fran? You game? I don't have to ask the other members if they are, because I already know the answer.

The claim of a dead person returning to life at anytime is not a reasonable claim IF we are talking strictly about what is natural.

But if God exists, then it wouldn't be a very difficult thing for a God to raise a dead person. If you can't concede such an obvious point, then how can we logically go forward?

While we wait for Fran, we need to decide what a reasonable person today would require to be convinced that a dead man returned to life 2000 years ago. What evidence would you require? Can any amount of historical textual documentation do the job, assuming there is no physical evidence left?

For me to belief something so incredible happened? I can't guarentee I'd belief it but here goes:

I'd need a reliable first hand account written by a decent researcher. Someone who attempted to review. Preferably somebody with a good brain, know then and today as a thinking man. Someone unaffiliated with the cult.

If any of the famous authors who lived in the city and who left a vast library between them had even mentioned the event, the man, or the cult.

Some kind of direct historical evidence that both the "victim" and the event where real.

Some proof the death was really death. An embalming would help (Egyptians were doing it for centuries so don't whine it wasn't invented yet) confirm death as opposed to coma or a sloppy vital check. Really confirm it's a miracle, epically if jebus had to grow a new heart, and the old was conveniently left in a jar to be matched to later evidence so us heathens could see it was the same guy.

Medical excuses; coma, possibly simple passed out in exhaustion and no one really checked the vitals before burial (some drugs can achieve this effect on a different level), strokes can impair the body so much it seems dead depending on where the clot is (and largely restore function when it slips or moves).

Indeed, the Bible TEACHES AND DEMANDS that we all TEST EVERYTHING!!!!!

God abhores Blind faith and teaches against it. So when Christians and the Bible are talking about "faith", they are talking about trust. But that trust is not blind. It is based on evidence. And that is the point.

I think you do not know god very well.

Quote

John 20:29 (New International Version)

29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

I don't need to see something to have good evidence for something and thus have good reason to believe it (or Him) exists.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 "But test and prove all things"

So is what you are saying by your comments in the quote box that you don't have faith in God, but that you trust him? How can you really know that you can trust God? How is it not blind faith when you are believing something without evidence? Faith in and of itself requires belief without evidence.

You may not require evidence to believe such claims like the resurrection of Jesus, but that does not mean others do not. Aside from expecting others to take the word of the Bible literally and trust that they are truly historical events and do indeed transcribe the words of God, how else can you provide evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? I have to ask, because you seem very bent on trying to persuade others to see the Bible as you do and to believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead. If I said there was a glowing neon panda in my closet, and you didn't believe me and asked for proof, would it make sense for me to respond back by saying "I don't need evidence, you prove it doesn't exist." ?

Logged

I can see where your coming from but on the other hand i dont want my kid to learn about evolution or see homosexualisom talked about in a scince classs ethier. <-- From Youguysarepathetic

At least I have a mother. Have you? (serious question) <---From Skylark889

The claim of a dead person returning to life at anytime is not a reasonable claim IF we are talking strictly about what is natural.

Not so fast - define dead first, and I'm not trying to be difficult. Technically define dead first.

Quote

But if God exists, then it wouldn't be a very difficult thing for a God to raise a dead person. If you can't concede such an obvious point, then how can we logically go forward?

Sure a god could, but -

We need to determine if historical text is enough for any claim of a historical event. For example, claiming that a certain person was a leader of a tribe or nation is not unusual or unreasonable, because we know that humans elect or have leaders in the normal course of history, even today, and it doesn't involve forces or actions that can't be duplicated.

But if a claim that a spaceship landed from another planet and helped humans, so long ago that we have no physical evidence, would we still accept the same type of historical documentation? This type of claim is unreasonable given any experience we know of now, so do we just accept it the same way as a claim that a person was the head of a nation? That is what we need to nail down.

But if God exists, then it wouldn't be a very difficult thing for a God to raise a dead person. If you can't concede such an obvious point, then how can we logically go forward?

Fran, you said that it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a different topic entirely. Stick with the purpose of the thread.

???????? It was Admin 1 who said that a dead person returning to life was not reasonable. I just responded. How is that not sticking with the purpose of the thread? We have to start with some basics, otherwise you can't logically move forward. As you see the positioning going on around you by your fellow non-believers, you can see we can't move forward until we define certain words (law of identity) and set up some parameters.

The claim of a dead person returning to life at anytime is not a reasonable claim IF we are talking strictly about what is natural.

Not so fast - define dead first, and I'm not trying to be difficult. Technically define dead first.

Quote

But if God exists, then it wouldn't be a very difficult thing for a God to raise a dead person. If you can't concede such an obvious point, then how can we logically go forward?

Sure a god could, but -

We need to determine if historical text is enough for any claim of a historical event. For example, claiming that a certain person was a leader of a tribe or nation is not unusual or unreasonable, because we know that humans elect or have leaders in the normal course of history, even today, and it doesn't involve forces or actions that can't be duplicated.

But if a claim that a spaceship landed from another planet and helped humans, so long ago that we have no physical evidence, would we still accept the same type of historical documentation? This type of claim is unreasonable given any experience we know of now, so do we just accept it the same way as a claim that a person was the head of a nation? That is what we need to nail down.

1)... Define dead? Clinically dead i guess. I don't know. I thought everyone knew what dead meant. No life. No expectation of the body to come back to life. No vital signs. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Whatever you want. It doesn't matter to me.

2)... If you are faced with certain facts... everyone (scientists and historians included)... we use our minds and logic to try and determine the best explanation of those facts... to infer the best conclusion from those facts... regardless where they lead us... because the best minds... the honest minds... the open minds... will always strive to let the evidence and facts LEAD THEM... and not the other way around. That is what being objective is all about.

So when I start an inquiry... i do my best to divest myself of as much biases... prejudices... emotions... pre-conceived conclusions... etc... as I can to help me better to let the evidence and facts lead me to an objective conclusion... even if that conclusion is painful... or even if it demands a paradigm shift in my world view and preconcieved notions about reality.

???????? It was Admin 1 who said that a dead person returning to life was not reasonable.

It is reasonable, given a certain state of the art in medical technology. But you need to define dead technically first, because it's a complicated definition if you think about it, taking into account what we know today (do you mean brain dead, stopped heart, etc.)

Quote

I just responded. How is that not sticking with the purpose of the thread? We have to start with some basics, otherwise you can't logically move forward. As you see the positioning going on around you by your fellow non-believers, you can see we can't move forward until we define certain words (law of identity) and set up some parameters.

I agree, go ahead and define your terms, such as what dead means, and anything else you need to define. I will attempt to moderate this discussion, but I might re-lapse into making my own opinion known from time to time.

???????? It was Admin 1 who said that a dead person returning to life was not reasonable.

It is reasonable, given a certain state of the art in medical technology. But you need to define dead technically first, because it's a complicated definition if you think about it, taking into account what we know today (do you mean brain dead, stopped heart, etc.)

Quote

I just responded. How is that not sticking with the purpose of the thread? We have to start with some basics, otherwise you can't logically move forward. As you see the positioning going on around you by your fellow non-believers, you can see we can't move forward until we define certain words (law of identity) and set up some parameters.

I agree, go ahead and define your terms, such as what dead means, and anything else you need to define.

So is what you are saying by your comments in the quote box that you don't have faith in God, but that you trust him? How can you really know that you can trust God? How is it not blind faith when you are believing something without evidence? Faith in and of itself requires belief without evidence.

You may not require evidence to believe such claims like the resurrection of Jesus, but that does not mean others do not. Aside from expecting others to take the word of the Bible literally and trust that they are truly historical events and do indeed transcribe the words of God, how else can you provide evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? I have to ask, because you seem very bent on trying to persuade others to see the Bible as you do and to believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead. If I said there was a glowing neon panda in my closet, and you didn't believe me and asked for proof, would it make sense for me to respond back by saying "I don't need evidence, you prove it doesn't exist." ?

1)... i'm using trust and faith in the same manner... faith can be (and is so in the Bible) defined as trust. It's not an either or proposition as you are making it out.

2)... "How can you really know that you can trust God?" The same way we trust those that we trust. Through repeated encounters and past experiences. How do you trust anyone you trust?

3)... "How is it not blind faith when you are believing something without evidence?" My belief and faith and trust in God is based on evidence.

4)... "Faith in and of itself requires belief without evidence". No it doesn't. The dictionary has MULTIPLE definitions (completely different from each other) for the word "faith". One of the definitions is trust. Faith means trust in the Bible and the way I am using it and the way the dictionary defines it.

5)... You may not require evidence to believe such claims like the resurrection of Jesus, I do require evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. The bible demands that we test and prove everything.

6)... Aside from expecting others to take the word of the Bible literally and trust that they are truly historical events and do indeed transcribe the words of God,

I trust in God and the general reliability of the Bible as an historical document based on evidence and logic and common sense.

7)... If I said there was a glowing neon panda in my closet, and you didn't believe me and asked for proof, would it make sense for me to respond back by saying "I don't need evidence, you prove it doesn't exist."

I'll tell you how this conversation will go, since I had this same conversation with Fran back in January. Fran will tell you he can't prove God exists by presenting physical evidence. But what Fran will tell you is that the resurrection of Jesus is reliably true, as discerned by the historical method, and that Jesus' resurrection thus supported is ample proof that God exists. You'll challenge him to demonstrate how the historical method supports truth claims about Jesus' resurrection, and that's where Fran will exit the conversation (without the courtesy of letting you know he's leaving), though he might beat around the bush for a while before jumping out.

He didn't support his claim with me back then, and he won't do it with you now. He'll tell you he has evidence, but he won't actually present the evidence. Or, he'll present something he says is evidence, but we'll pick it apart, and Fran will be left with nothing but hollow claims.

Good luck to all of you who engage with Fran on this topic. Or maybe I should offer good luck to Fran; he needs it more than anyone else.

1)... i'm using trust and faith in the same manner... faith can be (and is so in the Bible) defined as trust. It's not an either or proposition as you are making it out.

Where does it say in the Bible that faith and trust are synonymous?

Quote

2)... "How can you really know that you can trust God?" The same way we trust those that we trust. Through repeated encounters and past experiences. How do you trust anyone you trust?

How many encounters and past experiences have you personally had with God? What evidence do you have of your encounters or experiences with God? I trust people that everyone knows exists. Not everyone knows a God exists. In order to say you trust God, you must first prove God.

Quote

3)... "How is it not blind faith when you are believing something without evidence?" My belief and faith and trust in God is based on evidence.

What evidence? Don't just say it's based on evidence, provide it.

Quote

4)... "Faith in and of itself requires belief without evidence". No it doesn't. The dictionary has MULTIPLE definitions (completely different from each other) for the word "faith". One of the definitions is trust. Faith means trust in the Bible and the way I am using it and the way the dictionary defines it.

While I understand that there are many definitions for various uses of the word faith, I do not see how faith through trust is applicable. As I said before, how can you trust something that is not known to exist?

Quote

5)... You may not require evidence to believe such claims like the resurrection of Jesus, I do require evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. The bible demands that we test and prove everything.

What tests or studies have you done to test the Bible and the resurrection of Jesus? How did you conduct your research and tests? What were your results? If you've tested and proven this, then why not provide your test and it's results, surely this would solve everything.

Quote

6)... Aside from expecting others to take the word of the Bible literally and trust that they are truly historical events and do indeed transcribe the words of God,I trust in God and the general reliability of the Bible as an historical document based on evidence and logic and common sense.

Again, provide evidence. Simply saying you have evidence does not prove anything. What is more, how credible are the sources of your evidence?

Quote

7)... If I said there was a glowing neon panda in my closet, and you didn't believe me and asked for proof, would it make sense for me to respond back by saying "I don't need evidence, you prove it doesn't exist." I'm not arguing in such a manner.

You're right you're not arguing in that manner. It's more like you're saying "I have evidence [absent void where most people would insert evidence that they have].... I have evidence, my faith is based on trust". It's not an impressive argument by any means.

Logged

I can see where your coming from but on the other hand i dont want my kid to learn about evolution or see homosexualisom talked about in a scince classs ethier. <-- From Youguysarepathetic

At least I have a mother. Have you? (serious question) <---From Skylark889

I'll tell you how this conversation will go, since I had this same conversation with Fran back in January. Fran will tell you he can't prove God exists by presenting physical evidence. But what Fran will tell you is that the resurrection of Jesus is reliably true, as discerned by the historical method, and that Jesus' resurrection thus supported is ample proof that God exists. You'll challenge him to demonstrate how the historical method supports truth claims about Jesus' resurrection, and that's where Fran will exit the conversation (without the courtesy of letting you know he's leaving), though he might beat around the bush for a while before jumping out.

He didn't support his claim with me back then, and he won't do it with you now. He'll tell you he has evidence, but he won't actually present the evidence. Or, he'll present something he says is evidence, but we'll pick it apart, and Fran will be left with nothing but hollow claims.

Good luck to all of you who engage with Fran on this topic. Or maybe I should offer good luck to Fran; he needs it more than anyone else.

Good luck Fran.

Jazzman

I agree with you Jazzman. My brother would do the same thing, but he has yet to come on any rational thinking site to present the evidence he says there is for Jesus' resurrection (the bible is his only evidence). It also doesn't sit well with a Christian's "Statement of Faith" to question what the bible says, because it's "gods" inerrant word.

While we wait for Fran, we need to decide what a reasonable person today would require to be convinced that a dead man returned to life 2000 years ago. What evidence would you require? Can any amount of historical textual documentation do the job, assuming there is no physical evidence left?

I have no problem setting the bar really low. I only need one eyewitness report.

I'll tell you how this conversation will go, since I had this same conversation with Fran back in January. Fran will tell you he can't prove God exists by presenting physical evidence. But what Fran will tell you is that the resurrection of Jesus is reliably true, as discerned by the historical method, and that Jesus' resurrection thus supported is ample proof that God exists. You'll challenge him to demonstrate how the historical method supports truth claims about Jesus' resurrection, and that's where Fran will exit the conversation (without the courtesy of letting you know he's leaving), though he might beat around the bush for a while before jumping out.

He didn't support his claim with me back then, and he won't do it with you now. He'll tell you he has evidence, but he won't actually present the evidence. Or, he'll present something he says is evidence, but we'll pick it apart, and Fran will be left with nothing but hollow claims.

Good luck to all of you who engage with Fran on this topic. Or maybe I should offer good luck to Fran; he needs it more than anyone else.

Good luck Fran.

Jazzman

This is the way most of these conversations go, but that doesn't change the fact that I enjoy having these conversations. Who knows, perhaps if Fran realizes that he is left with empty claims enough, he will actually make a logical conclusion. Not likely, but it is possible.

Logged

I can see where your coming from but on the other hand i dont want my kid to learn about evolution or see homosexualisom talked about in a scince classs ethier. <-- From Youguysarepathetic

At least I have a mother. Have you? (serious question) <---From Skylark889

Here is the problem with the bible for me as an atheist. It appears to be full of fantastic stories that lack both consistency and a foundation in reality. God loves, god wipes out entire civilizations. God cares, god drowns nearly everybody. God is vengeful, god fears or at least acknowledges other gods (his magic snake was a better snake the the other god snakes before Moses skipped Egypt and got lost in the desert for 40 years, for instance).

He's omnipotent, yet it took him six whole days to make the universe. A snap of the finger should have done it. He's afraid of iron chariots and has only shown his backside. His kid goes missing for a couple of decades then comes back ready and raring to go. But he's not too good at being sensitive to local politics, and besides, what sort of messiah would he be if he died of old age?

For a christian to come here and say "I have evidence", be it of the resurrection or your own beliefs, be it of floods or the age of the earth or what kind of bush burned, and then provide none of it either assumes we're really big suckers or presumes that we're the ones that wrote all the Wikipedia articles on those subjects. Now I'm a sucker for a cute kitten or lemon meringue pie, but not stories of the fantastic that haven't impressed me since the late '50's.

Remember, belief is not our strong point. For you to rely on our ability to just "believe" any and every thing you say is a bit naive.

Its fine that you believe these things, but you would better serve the process if you could adequately explain why normal "facts" don't apply in this case or why you believed the person who told you that the bible was the word of your god and that Jesus was really really cool, or whatever it was that attracted you to christianity.